Leany on Life -- May 2011

Lots of required topics lately . . .

Continued below
(Best viewed with a mind not clouded by the Kool-Aid)

Leany home   |   Articles   |   Chronicles   |   Prostitution Arrests   |   Who is Frank Leany?   |   Libotomies   |  

The John Galt Society

It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all the grown-ups gone?"

Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them. I would suggest going gown this list every day and printing off the most recent articles you haven't read to read over lunch.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here.
Ann Coulter
Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns.
George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
Charles Krauthammer posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try Thomas Sowell, who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldbert seldom disappoints.
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.

Jewish World Review has all these guys plus lots more good stuff.

Or you can go to radio show sites like
 Laura Ingraham's or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's..

If you'd like you can study The Constitution while you wait.

Then there's always TownHall.com, NewsMax.com, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, World Net Daily, (which Medved calls World Nut Daily), News Busters, or National Review Online.

For the Lighter Appetite

If you have to read the news, I recommend The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media. HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters, it's a spoof.)

Dilbert.
Dave Barry's Column
Daryl Cagle's Index of Political Cartoons
About half of these cartoonists are liberal (Latin for wrong) but the art is usually good. (Fantastic, if you're used to the quality of art on this site.)

Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my I'm Not Falling For It section.

Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.

Check it Out

You probably already have, but just in case you haven't, check out Jordan's Eagle Project.

Lots of required topics lately . . .

I watched Obama's address Sunday night. My favorite part was where he gave credit to George W. Bush for the interrogation that led to the killing of bin Laden. And I also liked the part where he apologized to Bush for threatening to throw him in prison for the interrogations that led him to bin Laden.

I didn't actually see those parts of the speech. By the time I'd waited a half hour after the announcement was scheduled I didn't have the patience to watch the rest of the speech after the Whitehouse web site locked up.

But I'm sure that's what Obama said. I'm certain he didn't say anything like "Under MY direction, I I I I me me me me, I told Panetta, I, me me me, I, and I."

If he had said something like that, that would be classless and beneath a US President.

One of the most entertaining things about this whole deal is listening to the commentators mix up the words Osama and Obama.

Who would have figured that having a US President with common ties to our enemy would cause confusion?

A touching Martin Luther King quote is making its way across the virtual landscape:

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

That's a touching sentiment. But it's not Martin Luther King's.

I think King's part of the quote starts at "Returning hate for hate . . . "

If you've read this blog for more than three minutes you know: I rejoice in the death of evil men. I do. The quote above is a beautiful, moving, touching sentiment. But it's completely wrong. It's a view Peter Keating would take.

Maybe I don't have to hate weeds, but if I don't do my best to eradicate them I can't credibly claim to love flowers.

A prudent man would leave the topic alone, confident that you get it.

So . . .

Here's the deal. If you're thinking about death, you're thinking all wrong. You didn't kill a man. You prevented that man from killing human beings with actual value.

Some guy has a gun pointed at your child's head. Of course you can't kill that man--he's a human being, too. He's a child of God. Death is a bad thing no matter who it happens to.

Two words: Bullcrap, and Bang!

In a Priesthood lesson earlier this year someone asked the (canned) question from the lesson manual "What is Christlike love?" One of the leaders finally ventured an answer that went something like "It's totally, like, you know, like all like, good and like you know . . . so . . . yeah."

You know me--I'm always willing to help poor souls who haven't yet heard my opinion on a topic. That's just the kind of guy I am. When the guy giving the lesson said "That's exactly right. Very good, yes, good answer, that's right, so next question that I'm reading directly out of the manual . . . " I broke in with my humble but correct view.

When you think about things you love, they are typically things that serve you. I love the sound of a racing engine. I love apple pie. I love . . . things that make me feel good.

Christlike love is selfless love. It is love that doesn't serve you. When you love a person who has nothing to give you in return, that is Christlike love.

That's a beautiful thing. But I've coined another term for this. Since I'm already going to H-E-double hockey sticks, I can post this without too much fear of a lightning strike. Another term for that kind of love is: Welfare Love. It is unearned love.

Do you love anyone that you don't like? I'm sure you do. It's like the old question from grade school "Denise, Do you love Frank?" "Yeah, in God's way." (Frank: "Dang it!") You love human beings because they are God's children. You love all the members of your family, regardless of whether you choose to spend time with them.

They didn't do anything to earn that love. It's unconditional. That's a good thing and it's a noble thing to love them that way. I try to let my kids know that I love them unconditionally--that no matter what they do I will love them. I try not to say "You got straight As--I love you!" I express pride in their accomplishments and I express love for them, but I try not to tie them together; make one a condition of the other.

Dang, this is a long-winded piece. I'm willing to press on if you are. Trust me, I'm as bored at this point as you are. Just hang on a couple more paragraphs . . .

Having someone like you is earned. In that sense it's a higher love than Welfare Love. You have to earn someone's respect. You have to earn them wanting to spend time with you, choosing to do things with you, wanting to be around you.

Love me if you have to, but if you like me I've accomplished something.